SATYADEV Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Siddharth Verma, counsel for the petitioners and Sri Manoj Yadav, holding brief of Sri R.P.S. Yadav, counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THE writ petition has been filed against the orders of the Settlement Office, Consolidation date 21.2.2006 and the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 8.6.2006 and 5.8.2013 passed in proceeding under Section 9 -B of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953(hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Admittedly plot no.227/1 is the original holding of Satyadev as well as respondent nos. 4 and 5, who are brothers. It is also admitted that plot no.227/1 situates by the side of the road and is a land of commercial value. Initially, the valuation of pot no.227/1, 0.661 hectare was determined. Ramdev, respondent no.4 filed an objection (registered as Case No.284/1181) under Section 9B of the Act and claimed that since the land situates on the road side and had commercial value, accordingly, in case valuation is determined, the original tenure holder will suffer irreparable loss. Initially the Consolidation Officer by order dated 31.10.2000 allowed the objection and left plot no.227/1 as chak out. Thereafter Satyadev, the petitioner, filed a recall application which has been allowed by the Consolidation Officer by order dated 7.11.2005. The Consolidation Officer held that when the valuation of plot no.227/1 is determined the partition of all the cosharers will be effected by giving their share in their chaks. Accordingly, the earlier order dated 31.10.2000 was recalled.

(3.) I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. By virtue of power under Section 44A of the Act superior authority has been given jurisdiction to exercise power of the inferior authority.In such circumstances the Consolidation Officer has not committed any illegality in entertaining objection under Section 9 -B of the Act. The matter was heard and the delay was condoned and by order dated 31.10.2000 the Consolidation Officer has left plot no.227/1, area 0.661 hectares as chak out but subsequently he has recalled his order by the impugned order dated 7.11.2005 only on the ground that if valuation is determined then the parties will get their shares otherwise the plot will remain disputed being a joint plot. Here it may be mentioned that even if plot is out of consolidation area then also in exercise of powers under Section 9 -C of the Act the Consolidation Officer was competent to partition the plot on the spot among three brothers. Thus, the observation of the Consolidation Officer in this respect was wholly uncalled for. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation found that the land being the road side land accordingly, in view of the circular of the Consolidation Commissioner, U.P. he has left the land as out of consolidation area. The order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation does not suffer from any illegality. However, in case the petitioner wants partition of the land he may move an application under Section 9 -C of the Act, if the village is still under consolidation operation. In case any application is filed then it shall be disposed of in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observation the writ petition is dismissed.